Valve disses Microsoft, Xbox 360 with $6.79 Left 4 Dead 2

Valve has lowered the cost of both Left 4 Dead titles in Steam to under $7, …

The latest content for Left 4 Dead 2 has launched on the Xbox 360. Called "The Sacrifice," the levels show what happened before "The Passing," and is played from the point of view of the Left 4 Dead survivors. On the Xbox 360, it's also 560 Microsoft points, or $7. On the PC it's free, but Valve didn't think that was enough of a hint about their feelings for Microsoft's DLC policies.

So the price of the full game on the PC was lowered to $6.79 for a limited time on Steam. That's 20 cents less than the add-on campaign for the 360, and you get the entirety of the game, plus every piece of DLC. In fact, to buy a copy of the game on the 360 and get all the content you'll need to spend around $30 for the game, and $14 total for the two content packs. On the PC? You get everything for under $7. If you're feeling saucy, $20 will get you four copies of the game if you want to play with your friends.

That's still half the price of a single copy of the game and the extra content on the PC. Valve has long made it clear that it would rather give away these updates on Xbox Live, but Microsoft doesn't seem to enjoy the idea of leaving money on the table. This could very well be Valve's way of making its own thoughts on the cost of doing business with Microsoft very clear.

Valve announced at E3 that Portal 2 would be coming to the PlayStation 3, complete with Steamworks support. That means the company will be able to add content and take advantage of the robust community services that platform provides. Sony certainly seems more amenable to the idea of the sort of updates Valve offers with its games, and in this case Microsoft may have simply squeezed too hard.

On the other hand, it's possible this is simply a sale and we're reading too much into it.

179 Reader Comments

I saw that on Steam last night but I couldn't tell if it was actually L4D2 or DLC or what. Granted I didn't look that close, I think what threw me off was the little Steamplay icon, which I don't know what that means. Didn't get a whole lot of play out of L4D but for $7 I guess I could pick up the 2nd one too.

MS does seem to try to nickle and dime you more than Sony -- expensive proprietary hard drives vs. PS3 using standard user-replaceable laptop drives, needing Live Gold for both online play and Netflix, etc.

I saw that on Steam last night but I couldn't tell if it was actually L4D2 or DLC or what. Granted I didn't look that close, I think what threw me off was the little Steamplay icon, which I don't know what that means. Didn't get a whole lot of play out of L4D but for $7 I guess I could pick up the 2nd one too.

SteamPlay means they are giving away the Mac version of the game if you buy it for PC. Just log into steam on a Mac and download.

The Steam sale is for the entire game and all DLC... or you can get L4D and L4D2 for around $11 bundled together... and that too is with all the DLC. It's hard to beat a Steam sale.

Steamplay means you can play that game on a Mac or a PC. In other words you don't have to buy it twice to play it on two different platforms. Steamplay = WIN. For various reasons not all games will port over (easily) to the Mac, but all of the Source engine games should... thus the Steamplay icon by L4D2.

Do you primarily play multi-player or single player? L4D is really meant to be played either competitively via multi-player or co-op. It's a rather boring experience alone. If you prefer playing alone (I tend to do most of my gaming alone), Left 4 Dead really isn't going to impress you. Left 4 Dead and Gears of War were what sold me on co-op this generation. I know there have been games geared towards that endeavor previously, but I tend to go solo only. The only genre that I prefer MP in is RTS. Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander being my favorite RTS games (Supreme Commander 2 is cool, but feels a little limited in scope after playing various TA and SC games).

"That's quite the indictment of Microsoft's pricing practices." Is it really an indictment?

Hint: Valve considers Xbox Live the biggest and most direct competitor to Valve's Steam. Valve is essentially locked out of the consoles (a far bigger market than the PC where Valve dominates) so partnering with Sony and seeking ways to complain about their competitors seems less like an indictment and more of a strategical marketing push which they are happy to allow the blogging press run with.

Btw, a lot of console games, even Xbox games, have had free DLC. And $30 for a 1 year old game isn't a bad deal. Now if Valve is saying they want to offer ALL L4D2 content on the Xbox 360 via "Games on Demand" for $7 and MS is refusing that would be an interesting twist (although MS may be the L4D2 publisher on the 360?) but there is no indication of such.

Instead Valve is using this as free advertising for their service, Steam, against their competitor in the digital distribution market.

Question for those who've played L4D: is there a single player option and is it worth it? I only have satellite Internet so I cannot play online, but if I can pickup L4D and L4D2 for $10 it's a no brainer.

Valve has increasingly in the last couple years made the PC a great gaming platform. It's unfortunate that most people stick to the console so much and miss out on it.

Do they?

I really wish Valve were more open about sales figures. My guess is that sales are pretty strong given how many ports the PC is seeing and how well most of them are done. Look at Capcom as a prime example of a company dying to push PC ports of once console only titles (Dead Rising 2 to be more precise). Prior to STEAM Capcom's PC ports were utter shit (Resident Evil 4 anyone). Since STEAM, Capcom have made some of the best ports on the planet. Devil May Cry 4 is a prime example. Not only did Capcom take advantage of the PC's processing power by maintaining a framerate above 60FPS on most gamers rigs (without v-sync enabled, I see triple digits at 1920x1200 with 8xMSAA, 16x anisotropic filtering, and all in-game graphical options at their maximum on a rig that's three years old), they added modes that include significantly more enemies than any console can deliver while keeping the framerate at or above 60 FPS. To me, that says sales are high enough on the PC to support such development. Likely thanks to digital distribution options like STEAM and Impulse.

Damn I bought them 2 weeks ago *sigh* Oh well.edit: The single player isn't the strongest in LFD1, but it is fun (just short)...but at this price hell yes it's a no brainer. LFD2 seems more challenging, or at least I die more

MS does seem to try to nickle and dime you more than Sony -- expensive proprietary hard drives vs. PS3 using standard user-replaceable laptop drives, needing Live Gold for both online play and Netflix, etc.

I think the original Xbox traumatized them. Sony, on the other hand, had plenty of money and after the Dreamcast decided that attempting to knock the competition out as early as possible was the best way to go (the PS2 stayed at $129 for how many years when it had no real competition?). It'll be interesting to see how *next* generation is.

This would be interesting and exciting if I ever gamed on my PC anymore. However, like a lot of people at this point, relaxing on my couch and playing a quick game on a big screen is more appealing than having to pimp my PC's for good gaming on that platform. While I admire what Valve is trying to do, they still are tilting against windmills. The PC/Tablet/Phone is not the right environment for this kind of 3D gaming, and people will spend the extra money to play on more consistent and convenient platforms.

Lemurs; i'd argue Valve fights against the need to have a pimped out top of the line rig, since I'm playing LFD2 on a 3 year old GPU (an 8800GT) at nearly max everything on a 22" monitor. Some games and game companies are guilty of demanding latest and greatest, but Valve (and Blizzard) are not among them thankfully.EDIT: I bought LFD 1 and 2 on the advice of a friend and it has been well worth the...20-30 combined? I forget. I got them on sale, just not this good of one. And it's been a blast to hook up with my brother on west coast and chainsaw zombies. It's quality time while we're 2 time zones apart!edit 2:

Quote:

I really wish Valve were more open about sales figures.

Me too! I have this suspicion they move digital tons of games but we have no way of knowing. I wisht hey'd say how many games they've sold since they launched.

Valve never ceases to amaze me. While other companies try to charge an arm and a leg for every bit of DLC, Valve will gut the price of the _main_product_ just to make a point.

It isn't just to make a point. While they might not mention specific sales figures they have made it abundantly clear that their sales skyrocket when they put on sales like this. If you can sell 5 copies at 50 bucks or 50 copies at 5 bucks, what does it really matter? They have pulled in people that probably never would have even considered paying for the game if not for this sale.

I've already bought two gift copies for friends since the sale started.

*Additional thought* one could argue that having 50 new players would be a better deal here because then you are able to show people the quality of your product and make them want more down the line. Not to mention that it makes Valve look even more like the good guys in contrast to the behavior of the Ubisofts and Activisions.

I really love what Valve has done to the PC gaming community. A few years ago bloggers were yelling PC is dying and console is the future. Valve comes along and convinces people otherwise. Kudos to them.

Valve has increasingly in the last couple years made the PC a great gaming platform. It's unfortunate that most people stick to the console so much and miss out on it.

Do they?

I really wish Valve were more open about sales figures. My guess is that sales are pretty strong given how many ports the PC is seeing and how well most of them are done. Look at Capcom as a prime example of a company dying to push PC ports of once console only titles (Dead Rising 2 to be more precise). Prior to STEAM Capcom's PC ports were utter shit (Resident Evil 4 anyone). Since STEAM, Capcom have made some of the best ports on the planet. Devil May Cry 4 is a prime example. Not only did Capcom take advantage of the PC's processing power by maintaining a framerate above 60FPS on most gamers rigs (without v-sync enabled, I see triple digits at 1920x1200 with 8xMSAA, 16x anisotropic filtering, and all in-game graphical options at their maximum on a rig that's three years old), they added modes that include significantly more enemies than any console can deliver while keeping the framerate at or above 60 FPS. To me, that says sales are high enough on the PC to support such development. Likely thanks to digital distribution options like STEAM and Impulse.

To be honest, I don't think Steam has anything to do with it. It's more the fact that it's a lot easier to do a PC port from the 360 version of a game compared to the previous generations of consoles. In fact most if not all Capcom games use GFWL on PC instead of Steam. And just recently they commented on how they didn't want to release a Steam exclusive PC version of Super SF4 for some bullshit reason that I forgot.

I think MS's policy on charging for DLC is lame. If Valve wants to make their DLC free, then they should be able to. If MS wants to charge something for bandwidth or whatever, then do that. $7 is way too much for that.

I agree with Lemur. At 30 years old and almost married, I've lost interest in constant upgrading of hardware just to keep up with the graphics. I think I've wasted a lot of money on PC's over the years for this hobby. The loss of precision with a gamepad is made up with the comfort of the couch and the giant tv.

Although playing on weekends with football games playing on PIP and not on another tv in the background can kind of suck and is distracting for both gaming and tv viewing. But I have to have my fix of both when I'm not working and at some point the PC just doesn't draw me in the same way the 360 does.

I have an Xbox 360 and Steam and I'm glad they did this (assuming Ars is right, and not just looking into this too much). Microsoft needs to stop trying to take all our money with paying for a HDD transfer kit, paying to play a game I already own (Live), making things cost money that are free on PSN/PC, making us have a Gold account for Netflix use, etc. etc.

Before hailing Valve as the hero of gaming, keep in mind that it's possible for the pendulum to swing too far the other way. Look at the iPhone market- the vast majority of games cost either $1 or $0 so "serious" games are endangered, freemium grindfests rule the land, and it's very hostile to "real" developers who can't afford to run the production values of DS or PSP games on that kind of income.

This temporary sale was made possible by everyone who bought L4D2 at prices up to full retail over the last year, as well as everyone who ever bought anything on Steam and gave Valve their cut of it. It's not a revolutionary new direction for the entire industry.

I realize how hard it is to argue against "stuff should be cheaper", of course, but there is a middle ground to be found and this may not be it.

Look above me, read Lemurs' post. Can we all agree not to feed the troll?

Who's the troll? I didn't see anyone dis anything or anyone above your post. If you think it's me, that wasn't my intention. I only pointed out the strong point of Capcom's resurgence into PC gaming. I did not intend to dis console gaming or console gamers in any fashion. I utilize consoles myself, and would never trivialize them. Game consoles are awesome!

All I asked for is that Valve disclose some sales figures so we can see where PC sales are at. I fully well know console sales of titles are through the roof (CoD MW2 anyone). That doesn't mean PC sales are crap. It simply reflects a market like Lemurs stated. One in which games are targeted more at a consumer oriented base than an enthusiast market (which is where PC gamers are found, enthusiasts). It's a smart move quite frankly. Target a larger audience, reap more profit.

Question for those who've played L4D: is there a single player option and is it worth it? I only have satellite Internet so I cannot play online, but if I can pickup L4D and L4D2 for $10 it's a no brainer.

TIA

Yes it does, but no it's not worth it. At least I wouldn't say it is. Although for $10...maybe. The risk is low, right?

All the single-player is is the same co-op campaign, with AI for your three teammates. The campaigns are pretty good, but the AI is dead stupid, IMO. Still...for $10? Lots of zombies to kill.

KitsuneKnight wrote:

Valve never ceases to amaze me. While other companies try to charge an arm and a leg for every bit of DLC, Valve will gut the price of the _main_product_ just to make a point.

That's easier to do when you're not trying to sell hardware, and when you don't have to compete with used game sales. Just sayin'. Love Valve, but let's not compare apples to caddilacs.

I also have to wonder, does XBL set the price that must be charged? And what criteria is that based on? Is there anything stopping Valve from charging, say, 400 points ($5) for the DLC on XBL? I'm curious if anybody knows exactly how Valve's hands are tied here.

Valve has increasingly in the last couple years made the PC a great gaming platform. It's unfortunate that most people stick to the console so much and miss out on it.

Do they?

I really wish Valve were more open about sales figures. My guess is that sales are pretty strong given how many ports the PC is seeing and how well most of them are done. Look at Capcom as a prime example of a company dying to push PC ports of once console only titles (Dead Rising 2 to be more precise). Prior to STEAM Capcom's PC ports were utter shit (Resident Evil 4 anyone). Since STEAM, Capcom have made some of the best ports on the planet. Devil May Cry 4 is a prime example. Not only did Capcom take advantage of the PC's processing power by maintaining a framerate above 60FPS on most gamers rigs (without v-sync enabled, I see triple digits at 1920x1200 with 8xMSAA, 16x anisotropic filtering, and all in-game graphical options at their maximum on a rig that's three years old), they added modes that include significantly more enemies than any console can deliver while keeping the framerate at or above 60 FPS. To me, that says sales are high enough on the PC to support such development. Likely thanks to digital distribution options like STEAM and Impulse.

To be honest, I don't think Steam has anything to do with it. It's more the fact that it's a lot easier to do a PC port from the 360 version of a game compared to the previous generations of consoles. In fact most if not all Capcom games use GFWL on PC instead of Steam. And just recently they commented on how they didn't want to release a Steam exclusive PC version of Super SF4 for some bullshit reason that I forgot.

I'd agree were it not for how many features are present in Capcom's PC titles that don't exist in the console versions. AKA, support for proprietary 3D via nVidia's graphics cards or use of nVidia's physx (both options that cut out about 40% of the PC market alone, much less console support). Though SONY is really getting in on the 3D gaming support side via the PS3.

I think Ben is suggesting that people who come into a thread about a sale on Steam randomly saying:

"I don't play on PC anymore and here's why and I'm suggesting that most people agree with me and not you because PC gaming is essentially dying and developers are moving away from PC and <insert other bullshit here>"

...or something else is indeed quite the troll. It's deliberately trying to turn a comments thread into a lame Platform Warz (tm) topic diverting it away from the actual topic at hand.

Fantastic for you and your personal opinions. I applaud your ability to hold those opinions. Or something. But those opinions are entirely irrelevant to the thread. But in a thread in which your post was relevant, it would be quite easy to pick it apart in a number of ways to show how your assertion that your opinion is mainstream or credible is quite a bit flawed.